Conway dispensed the stern advice as part of a polling presentation she made alongside fellow GOP pollsters David Winston  an adviser to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)  and Dave Sackett. The comment was described by several sources in the room.

Conway said rape is a four-letter word, and Republicans simply need to stop talking about it in their races for office.

Several GOP candidates got themselves in hot water during the 2012 campaign by talking about rape. Former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said a woman could terminate a pregnancy resulting from a legitimate rape. Richard Mourdock, who lost his race for a Senate seat in Indiana, said babies resulting from rape were a gift from God.

Last week, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.)  an OB-GYN since 1975 and co-chairman of the House GOP Doctors Caucus  commented that Akin was partly right in saying that female rape victims have a way of shutting down the body during legitimate rape that will prevent pregnancy.

Last Friday, Gingreys office provided a statement in which he appeared to distance himself from the remarks, which he said were misconstrued.

Several GOP candidates got themselves in hot water during the 2012 campaign by talking about rape. Former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said a woman could terminate a pregnancy resulting from a legitimate rape.

Liberals think they have conservatives cornered when they ask about abortion for rape. To shut them up, a conservative can answer, 'OK, let's limit abortion to just rapes." With this answer, the liberal is then backed into a corner they don't want to be in.

Yes, just make sure the response isn't something stupid such as pontificating about women's bodies magically shutting down during rape, or what may or may not constitute a "legitimate" rape, etc. Good grief, just have a canned answer and stick to it.

That's why, in the case of Akin, Democrats funneled money (over a million dollars) into his primary campaign. They knew Akin had foot in mouth disease and wouldn't be able to cut it as a statewide candidate outside his very conservative district. Unfortunately, we had idiots like Mike Huckabee in there convincing Akin and his supporters he could win. Of course he predictably lost and gave Claire another 6 years in that seat.

(from the article)~: “Conway dispensed the stern advice as part of a polling presentation she made alongside fellow GOP pollsters David Winston  an adviser to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)  and Dave Sackett. “

I’ve always been brought up : “you are known by the company that you keep “ .
If Conway hangs with Boehner’s pollster ,
that’s all I need to know !!
LOSER !!

The only rape that is going on in this country right now is
Boehner (and his pollster) allowing the financial, social ,
moral and legal rape of this country by the most
progressive , Socialist , Marxist POS who is out campainging

You don’t have to be an overpaid GOP pollster to realize that the ‘GOP loves rape’ meme, which social media like Facebook is saturated in, is horrifically annihilating GOP popularity among low information voters.

But it helps.

15
posted on 01/17/2013 2:39:50 PM PST
by Steel Wolf
("Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Gaius Sallustius Crispus)

Professional political analysts who are oblivious to the fact that it is simply in responding to leftwingtard MSM agents that's the problem really shouldn't be hired in the future for political campaigns.

I was thinking of the way Congresscritters were kept appraised of what was going on in the Clinton trial ~ private individuals at their own expense DELIVERED detailed information to every Congressman.

Sure, most of the New York crowd skipped over it, and the majority of the California Democrats can't even read English, but it worked with the House in general.

Next campaign we need to be prepared to blanket all Republican campaigns for every open office ~ even state offices ~ of a quick guide to SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE BEHAVIOR.

3X5 X24 pages probably ought to do it. Rule 1 ~ never go one on one with a leftwing msm agent. Rule 2 ~ never acknowledge a question from a leftwing msm agent. Rule 3 ~ put up a sign at every campaign stop where YOU are renting the hall/site that NO CAMERAS OR RECORDINGS ALLOWED WITHOUT THE EXPLICIT PERMISSION OF THE CANDIDATE ~ HE"S PAID THE RENT NOT YOU.

We could probably come up with 100 basic rules in a good half hour just thinking of things we know that worked.

“Any male politician who utters the word rape in ANY context is an idiot. Period.”

YESSSS! How hard is it? These politicians need to PREPARE in advance an answer to the inevitable “gotchya” questions that are going to come from the media. If they can’t prepare for that,,they have no business serving in office.

The problem isn’t “talking about rape.” As long as liberals in the media know that Republicans are ignorant and/or fundamentally unprincipled on the subject of life they will continue to bring focus there.

Just answer them as follows:

“Killing an innocent person for the crime of another person is barbaric, don’t you think? Personally, I believe in due process and equal protection for every single innocent person in this country. Those are the principles upon which this country, and our entire system of law and justice, are premised. How about you? Don’t you believe in equality?”

The most they can do after that is babble nonsensically. But mostly, in my experience, they just shut up and go away.

A lot has to do with how much attention the media gives a “flawed” candidate. Obviously the senate is the one the RINOs and democrats wanted to keep in “moderate” hands but a lot of wild accusations and threats were thrown and tea party house candidates.

Here in Michigan Kerry Bentivolio (Who won the Thad McCotter seat) was accused of conspiring with the McCotter staffers. On election day it was reported by liberal radio that charges would be announced against Bentivolio. When charges were announced in the case the AG specifically said that despite rumors Kerry Bentivolio was in no way part of the case. They also accused him of abusing students when he was a high school teacher.

23
posted on 01/17/2013 2:54:56 PM PST
by cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)

I hope you aren't trying to pretend that would be the end of it because most FReepers aren't little children and know better than think that would end right there.

How about "I'm 100% pro-life in all circumstances. Period. End. Let's move on." It wasn't their pro-life stances that doomed Akin and Mourdock. It was needlessly pontificating about half-baked magic uterus theories and "gift from God" proclimations that gave their opponents the sound bites they were looking that sealed their fates.

How about this:
“Rape is a CRIME. It is a personal, traumatic crime. Every resource should be made available to a person who is a victim of such a trauma. They alone get to decide how to move forward after experiencing such a horrible assault. It’s horrible beyond words. Abortion is not a crime. Rape is. Do you see the difference now? I will not exploit rape victims to make a political point or as an excuse to set policy. I think that would be cruel.” or something like that,,we could do our conservative reps a favor by having a debate thread,,why not? Where we poke holes in every possible issue so that the conservative side can think about a strategy and come up with a response. What do you say Jim? We can call it the “Devil’s Advocate” forum and throw slings/arrows at conservative positions in order to shore them up for prime time.

I am struggling to think of even a single republican with enough political dexterity to avoid that extremely obvious minefield wherein the mines are not buried and have flasing neon signs on each one of them.

I want to say Ted Cruz, but I have not seen enough of him yet to be able to judge properly.

The inevitable follow question will then be this  You mean you will FORCE the woman who was raped to have the child?

Its an inescapable trap where no answer will make everyone happy Maybe the best answer is something along the lines of.....

"I don't believe in Abortion and I know many people disagree with me. However, my power to act according to my conscience is limited by current law and yes, I will work to change that law but success is in no way guaranteed. This is the most honest answer I can give. Can my opponent answer as honestly?"

40
posted on 01/17/2013 3:19:14 PM PST
by cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)

Look, I (and probably several of the other posters with whom you've been corresponding on this thread) don't disagree with you on the moral reprehensibility of abortion. We would merely point out that copping a sanctimonious attitude in an argument and then demanding all or nothing will generally get you nothing.

Reading down through this thread I'm reminded why the Republican Party is in the mess it's in, frankly, and why the Democrats defeat them so easily.

Here's how a real republican statesman answers questions of this sort:

"These communities [the Fathers of the Republic], by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to his creatures.

Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages.

Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, or none but Anglo-Saxon white men, were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began, so that truth and justice and mercy and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.

"Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me  take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever  but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man's success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity  the Declaration of American Independence."

-- Abraham Lincoln, speech in Lewiston, Illinois, August 17, 1858, four days before his first historic debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Printed in the Chicago Press and Tribune

Every day in America 3,700 innocent babies a killed by an abortionist. But it's more important to parade our moral superiority than to develop a rational plan to save as many of those lives as possible?

When I used to play poker, there was no better guy to have sit at the table than someone who would bet the farm on every hand; he was absolutely certain to lose.

Exactly====but at this point, sorry to say, the whole GOP position concerning abortion has been “tarnished” by those two, and that was by design from the MSM and the Dems.
Now, anyone who has a pro-life voting background or reputation will look a little too careful and circumspect and basically “dishonest” when the Gotcha Gang from the media asks them pointed questions on the subject.
It’s a no-win situation, and you can be sure the MSM is salivating over the prospect of seeing another Mourdock or Akin appear.
It’s a bit like the damned if you do/don’t dynamic that obtained when Sarah Palin was on the ticket.
Libs, projecting their own inauthenticity, claimed that she was parading her children around onstage,especially the disabled one, exploiting them for political purposes.
Of course if Sarah had resolutely avoided giving her children ANY exposure, especially the disabled one, the Libs would’ve said “WHAT IS SHE HIDING????IS SHE ASHAMED OF HER CHILDREN????THIS LADY IS UNTRUSTWORTHY!!”

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.